MPs Back “Negative Register” of Care Workers, Following Abuse Scandals

Community Care reports this morning that MPs in the Commons health committee have backed proposals made by The Health and Care Profession Council’s (HCPC), that a register should exist detailing all those social workers who have been deemed unfit to work in adult social care, after investigation. The move would, it is argued, offer greater protection to service users.

We think this is a good idea, but we would like to see this extended to those social workers and CAFCASS officers in child social care who have also been investigated and deemed to be unfit to practice. If we consider it right to protect service users, then we must consider it imperative to protect vulnerable children who are at risk of abuse too.

Like this:

Post navigation

6 thoughts on “MPs Back “Negative Register” of Care Workers, Following Abuse Scandals”

The HCPC and the ICO will never give or write truth or hand out Justice they are only there to protect their own and the Government body Maggie Tuttle and many families who have reported corrupt social workers and court experts all we get is GOOD BYE no case. I am fed up with the cover up in this so called Britian and it is about time that the British Governments who allow the social workers courts judges and all were brought to account in the name of justice.

Absolutely! Its good that a record will be kept of adults abused by professionals but children are possibly more vulnerable as family are unable to see their children as social workers prevent the family from having any contact! There needs to be a register for them too!

Whilst some pressure groups are starting their own registers this is limited to what is found on an as hoc basis on the internet. There needs to be an official register and that list subdivided into occupations, on a yearly basis. There also needs to be a record of what punishments were given to them.

It is shameful that the British investigation into the children being sent to Australia found many children were sexually abused BEFORE being sent overseas! Many also were further abused once placed into homes! These people who abused the children didn’t just fade away, they no doubt continued to abuse even more children in the care system!

There once was a register, it was called List 99 and its sole purpose was for the DoE to register and record dodgy education staff to ensure they didn’t get employed due to cross country confusion.

This shows however where mission creep and misguided social worker policy ruined the concept of List 99.

L99 was expanded to cover further professionals such as those in the medical side and at the LA level… yes social workers were placed upon this when found to have been acting criminally.

It was when social workers started appearing on it that the first abuses were aimed at it. When social workers started to be listed in the first section, they were NOT happy about this one bit and if you have any information of something dodgy with a social worker, then you can write this in yourselves.

List 99 I suppose you could call it schism’d and was split into two distinct parts, one section was for tried and convicted, done and dusted people who there were no doubts about but the second part was far more sinister but I can see the good intentions paving that way, as it was for “suspected” people considered a danger to children and the rushed and hashed creation of that side led to it being a very open book and no longer was there a need for it to be a working with children professional, anyone could be put onto List 99 ScII and no proof, no evidence was needed and social workers started putting obstructive parents on it then a couple weeks later “discovering” that said parents were on List 99 therefore they must be a risk.

I spoke with the director responsible for L99 myself as I had found a reference in my own records of where the council had tried to put my name on there but the DoE had changed the rules to comply with laws and the days of sending a name there are now over as the DoE have to by law write to the person to let them know they are being placed on this list.

Do ring up the Dep of Education or write to them and demand you have proof that they have no records of you and demand too of any attempt by a social worker to place your name on the second section. They might flap about the second request but trust me they do record people who try it on, they have to for legal reasons but will try and not give you this information, if they say you have no records on there, then ask them nicely for that in writing as it is a useful piece of paper when social workers are claiming you are the worst thing going since Saddam Hussein’s socks.

Social workers are adept at evading these registers, many a social worker has found work elsewhere just by keeping mum about their previous employment and directors even now still refuse to follow the law which is that the governing body MUST be notified of complaints, not upheld complaints but complaints MADE and that the director MUST also notify the governing body of outcomes but because this goes onto a social workers permanent record, they just refuse to do this.

If a police officer beats you up and you make a complaint about that officer and because of its severity, the police will take that officer off duty and launch an investigation, that officer is always interviewed with an independent person present as well as a Police Federation officer, THAT is what is supposed to happen with complaints regarding social workers but the very first thing that happens is the team manager is brought in by the director and instead of working out how to investigate this, they infallibly collude to work out how to cover it up, I have seen emails between the director and team manager in my own cases complaints showing how they coordinate to best stymie the service user or client.

Surely not people would say but we have to look at a bigger picture here, many SSD Directors are now onto the “foster farm” fraud as it requires someone in senior management, someone in office level management and a compliant social worker to make it all work and they make thousands a month out of this in untaxed, pure gold theft from the taxpayer. It involves with setting someone up with a very large house, they are “passed” as foster carers, everything is kitted out for them at taxpayers expense billed onto other legitimate reasons and the social worker’s task is to fill that home up with long, long term foster children. Now you think, the going rate per child is 500 a week plus expenses, times that by 20 and we are talking at a base level of £10,000 a week but children don’t cost £10,000 a week, even 20 don’t and costs are cut at every corner too.

There is an odious practice in fostering called “receipt rinsing” where foster carers go to Asda’s or John Lewis’s and buy lots of clothes which has no limit because they are “expenses”, the social worker, remember her in tow, she takes them receipts and copies them and has them back to the foster people in a fairly swift time, who then goes back to Asda’s or whatever and turns the clothes back in for full refund. They then go onto eBay or down the bootfair or charity shops and buy in a load of clothes at a fraction of the price and the bonus bunce from the expensive clothes is divvied up between the social worker, director and foster people. £40-50K is being given to these “farms” and only a small part of it is actually used as it should be, you go try and look into some of these places records and see how quickly you are blocked.

And the jackpot is yet to come, if a child, any child has the slightest disability or special needs, the foster farm can ask for extra money, how does £10,000 a WEEK for that one child sound, yep that is the average going rate for that class of foster care and they are always on the look out for sweet juicy little disabled-ish kids (They don’t want the real hard work cases, just technically on paper hard work)

Now lets take this a step further shall we? When Rochdale was exposed I said across the net that the council and social workers were involved up to the hilt, same in Rotherham as well and that it has been suggested but never followed up upon, that the social workers were acting as pimps for the young girls being preyed upon by the gangs of men. Go back in history to all of the big scandals like this and you see where, exactly where the discovery of such crimes are stopped. Whilst the little team and their foster farm are making their fortune through exploiting the taxpayer, there are occasions when Mr Director may one day at the Lodge be offered a different sort of offer that social worker will never hear about… You look at those scandals and you will see that every time access has been sanctioned by someone very high up indeed who have the ability to keep access quiet as well, Rochdale, Rotherham, Elms Guest house and more were turned into brothels for the very powerful and rich, Jersey was a fine example of this disgusting state of affairs where they were advertising to the global network of rich and powerful predators that these children were available as a “holiday activity” and it is time and again the network of Freemasons in council, in parliament, the courts, the police that have ever protected these activities. The police refused to investigate the social workers involved in Rochdale and Rotherham, despite more than one girl telling the police the social workers were in on it and even drove them to their clients. Complaints were made about the workers, why were these complaints quashed? How far does the rot and corruption in these SSD’s go?

I put this here as I am trying to show why directors seem to protect their workers to the death and what worker is going to say no to an extra couple grand a month tax free and under the radar of HMRC and a very easy caseload? I have spoken to people who have seen this happen in other regions than my own, it is fraud and these people are almost immune to the law, the worker knows if the director doesn’t play ball, she opens her mouth and claims she was coerced by management etc etc.

Name changing is also quite a good way round, one of the idiots I had registered in her maiden name, when she had accrued complaints she told them she was a new social worker, here’s my letter from the director to confirm this and she gets a nice clean new record complaint free, if she burns that name, she then re-registers in her maiden name again but when asked if she is the original person, “Oh no, don’t tell me there is someone else out there called…”

The type of food fosterers give the foster children bothers me. My grandchild went from eating healthy foods to rubbish in a very short time! Grapes were her favourite fruit but on my last contact with her when I offerered grapes, her response was “yuk!”. Whenever I walk around a supermarket, it’s the junk foods that are cheap so it stands to reason that what they will get!

Fosterers don’t necessarily go into fostering for altruistic reasons, more likely to pay the mortgage! Maybe not all but a large percentage. Social workers do not make any financial checks on fosterers. Nor do they check if any gamble, yet a growing number of people are ruined because of this habit.

I have also read that some fosterers favour their own children and foster kids are the latter day Cinderellas! There are no checks from any organisation. Ofsted do not go into foster homes and checks are done by the social workers. Very often the same one who placed the child in the first place! If they are serious about protecting children there needs to be independant checks, judging from the high percentage of looked after children making complaints against the fosterers and calling the helplines! Only a small percentage of these complaints are upheld which gives rise to question the investigations and investigators!